Rittenhouse - innocent or guilty?

[Jon]

They get training appropriate to their new avocation/profession/career. Firefighters learn about types of fires, strategies for suppressing and controlling and extinguishing, and how to prioritize actions. They learn about special fuels that need special suppressants. (Before you ask, my dad was a firefighter.) Cops and soldiers learn how to use guns and (for the good ones) when and how to not use them. They learn about tactics and ways to protect themselves. Kyle apparently had none of that.

As I already pointed out, training doesn't mean you are still not at risk. Soldiers are likely to have great skill in using guns, yet there are 393 million guns in the US. It is a basic right over there. Is there a law that requires a certain level of skill with owning the gun? Do they have to learn the police or military tactics? I don't think so. (I don't actually know!)

Kyle was a police cadet and firefighting cadet. He had some knowledge, so more than the general public. In any case, he used his weapon effectively to disable his aggressors when assaulted.

But not smart enough to not go in the first place.

You haven't addressed why it is any different to joining the military, taking up rock climbing and so on. All put your own life at risk. Anyone carrying a gun can put others at risk if they are attacked, yet it is a basic right in the US. Does that right mean the US is stupid to have that law?

As I see it, if you think it is not smart to go in the first place, you are probably thinking some or all of the following:

a) "You are putting yourself in danger." Well, so are police, military, golfers, drivers etc! Is going to a war zone stupid if you join the military? A war zone is much more dangerous than a riot.

b) "You are putting others at risk because you don't have the same level of training as police, military etc." You mean like the hundreds of millions of other citizens, who also must be stupid if they own a gun without the same level of training?

c) "You have no right to be there. It was across state lines!" False. The law defines your rights. He had every right to be there, AND to carry.

Some people want to help out, even if increases the risk to their personal safety. You can call that stupid, but I don't think the police are stupid because they take that risk and regularly.

Several posts ago, NG suggested that the mayor made such a request.

I am not aware about the mayor saying anything, although he may have. My understanding is that the owner of a building sent a message out (group message?), and (one of) the persons who received that message, then messaged Kyle requesting assistance. So Kyle volunteered. However, besides this, he had a legal right to be there. He was legally carrying the gun. It looks like the prosecution was misleading the court by suggesting it was illegal, and it is illegal to carrying a short barrelled rifle at age 17. So the defence brought the gun into court, measured it, and surprise surprise, it was not a short barrelled gun. Kyle had every legal right to be there with this rifle. It just shows that the prosecution doesn't care about the truth, only about convicting and will lie to do it.

[Edit: I also understand that you are not 100% in the direction you are arguing, because as you stated, you are on a knife edge.]

 

[NauticalGent]

My understanding is that the owner of a building sent a message out (group message?), and (one of) the persons who received that message, then messaged Kyle requesting assistance.

Exactly. I have not gone back and re-read my exact wording, but what I meant to say is that the owner of the car lot requested assistance and that it was the MAYOR who directed the police to show restraint - which is absolutely ridiculous and in my opinion, makes him somewhat responsible for what when down: Had law enforcement, and/or even the National Guard, been allowed to do the job they SIGNED UP to do and have been properly TRAINED to do, business owners may have not felt compelled to solicit help form citizens and this young man may have stayed home an played X-Box instead.

 

[Jon]

Yes indeed, the mayor had the policy of letting the city burn and repair afterwards. He was complicit in the destruction. But as a Democrat mayor, what do you expect? Look at Seattle and Portland for further examples.

What is a bit ironic is that when Trump was in power, the mayor put off accepting help from the National Guard until much later. With Biden in power, he has them there already as a precaution. The stench of hypocrisy is hurting my nose!

this young man may have stayed home an played X-Box instead.

You mean Call of Duty.

 

[NauticalGent]

You mean Call of Duty.

Jon said doody....

 

[The_Doc_Man]

if I go to a foreign country, why should I lose any right to life? There is no legal or moral justification for that whatsoever.

Ah, but there is where you are wrong (legal side...). Despite all protestations, you always and only have the rights recognized by the country where you find yourself. That "legal" right to life doesn't work for gays in several of the strict Islamic countries. It doesn't work for apostates (Islamic euphemism for "not a follower of the Muslim faith) in those countries either.

Philosophy can be all nice and warm and fuzzy, but at the end of the day, it is the LAW OF THE LAND that recognizes and protects those rights.

 

[Jon]

Ah, but there is where you are wrong (legal side...). Despite all protestations, you always and only have the rights recognized by the country where you find yourself. That "legal" right to life doesn't work for gays in several of the strict Islamic countries. It doesn't work for apostates (Islamic euphemism for "not a follower of the Muslim faith) in those countries either.

In the US, there is also the death penalty, which is hardly a right to life. But we are talking about self defence, are we not? We are not talking about other offences, such as being gay(!), drug smuggling in Singapore and so on. Crossing a state line does not mean you cannot defend yourself. You can ignore the context of the discussion and talk about other crimes if you like, but why would you need to do that if your argument was sound?

Philosophy can be all nice and warm and fuzzy, but at the end of the day, it is the LAW OF THE LAND that recognizes and protects those rights.

Exactly, and the law of self defence doesn't disappear when you cross a state line.

Edit: Please note, I am not a lawyer and just winging it! But I believe what I am saying is very likely to be correct.

 

[Jon]

So, we have squabbled online, the prosecution and defence have said their bit. The media and presidents have chipped in. What do you think the verdict will be?

My opinion? Hung jury. There are philosophical differences between political sides that are entrenched. It depends on how malleable they are to evidence.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

As I already pointed out, training doesn't mean you are still not at risk.

The risk was there more or less equally for both sides, so that's a "wash" as we call it in USA vernacular. (For those unfamiliar with the idiom, it is a way of saying "It applies equally to both sides of the opposing arguments.") Both sides were private citizens exercising their right to be at some place other than their homes, so again that is a wash. Both sides were armed, so that's a wash. Both sides did the following things in order: Obtained weapons (providing the means to commit murder); traveled to a specific place where selected other people were expected to be (providing the opportunity to commit murder); and were involved in a politically intense physical display of antagonism in action (providing a motive for murder.) Means, motive, opportunity = basic elements of the crime of murder. But both sides were there under the same initial conditions, so THAT'S a wash.

I could not care less (in this case) about the training, since I'm sure that over the two groups, gun training was ALSO a wash. If well trained climbers enjoy the danger (or hang-gliders or spelunkers or circus trapeze artists, take your pick) then they are adrenaline junkies. But specifically for the military, police, and fire units, they have something else: They are not placed in positions of authority until they have received training by the political units that hired them. The training isn't only about their guns or whatever else they use - it is also about authority and their rights to use those weapons, the "rules of engagement." While clearly it is possible for police to be provocative, it would be a tougher "sell" to say that the two decedents were victims of police provocation - because police and military are trained HOW to shoot and WHEN to shoot - and also when NOT to shoot. But Kyle wasn't an officer or even a poorly-trained deputy.

Neither side appears to have received significant briefings regarding any rules of engagement, so THAT'S a wash, too. And that is why I remain on the knife edge. All I see appears to be equal blame. It appears to come down to identifying which side felt provoked because then the other side loses the right of self-defense. And at the moment, the evidence and counter-claims I have seen are such that even that much is a wash.

I hope this explains to you why I feel like this is balanced on a knife-edge. It should also explain my earlier question about whether someone with proper authority invited volunteers to help protect something. Because absent such authority, even their motives are a wash - both acting based on their political beliefs in a volatile situation.

You know from my behavior in the Watercooler and other non-tech sections that I look to understand both sides of any issue (unless I'm being very playful at the moment.) In this case, I find an astounding level of balance. If I were on this jury, I would have a very hard time finding for either side. Since I have not seen the evidence in detail, I cannot say here in the forum what I would have seen - but I have to fall back on the old rule "Innocent until PROVEN guilty" and therefore would acquit Kyle. BUT that is because I'm still on that knife-edged balance. With sufficient prosecutorial evidence, I might leave that position.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

why would you need to do that if your argument was sound?

You are the one who asked the hypothetical question about "right to life" (as a self-defense issue) when in other countries. You are the one who crossed a border and tried to use a philosophical argument to win a legal position. And all I did was point out the fallacy involved. My other response is the best explanation I can give regarding my position.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

My opinion? Hung jury.

There is no possible way that I could argue against that opinion. In fact, I would expect it as a result of a practical legal application of Chaos Theory, with the start of deliberations through to the verdict as the period where the chaos applies.

One aspect of chaos theory is "sensitive dependence on initial conditions" where the major forces are all in balance, so it is minor factors that will lead to the decision. Among those factors, you might find that some formative event in each juror's childhood became significant because the facts of the case are so balanced.

One would hope that the AFTERMATH of the verdict will NOT be more Antifa chaos.

 

[Jon]

You are the one who asked the hypothetical question about "right to life" (as a self-defense issue) when in other countries. You are the one who crossed a border and tried to use a philosophical argument to win a legal position. And all I did was point out the fallacy involved. My other response is the best explanation I can give regarding my position.

Firstly, you brought in state lines as a factor. I am saying it was irrelevant to the discussion. It was analogous to being in a different country and someone losing their right to self defence for that reason alone. Secondly, you are now suggesting the equal right to self defence for an immigrant is a philosophical position, rather than a legal one. That is clearly not the case. Next, you go off topic and bring in irrelevant crimes like being gay!

There is no fallacy.

 

[Jon]

The training isn't only about their guns or whatever else they use - it is also about authority and their rights to use those weapons, the "rules of engagement."

And what about the authority of the hundreds of millions of gun owners in the US? Do they too have to have military or police training?

But Kyle wasn't an officer or even a poorly-trained deputy.

He was just a cadet. But he may have had great training. Unlike the prosecutor who points the gun with his finger on the trigger in court.

Source: nypost.com

The poorly trained Rittenhouse shows you how to do it. Safety first!

Source: townnews.com

You know from my behavior in the Watercooler and other non-tech sections that I look to understand both sides of any issue

I think trying to understand the issue is important. I certainly do the same. However, I would like to add that understanding differing viewpoints does not mean a centrist position is the best one. Suicide bombers are just freedom fighters, right? I see these legal trials about probabilities. Who is telling the truth, who the lies? In the Rittenhouse case, he had legal right to own the gun, to be there, to cross state lines. All those factors should be removed from any determination of guilt. To include them is to pervert the law. We are after all talking about legal arguments and not conflating with philosophical discussions, right?

I am curious, if there was no provocation in this case, and someone chased after Kyle and he shot, would you consider those circumstances as self defence?

Rittenhouse for Governor!

 

[Jon]

I think MSNBC may be the worst fake news of the lot and I just cannot believe the utter nonsense they are talking. Do they actually believe what comes out of their mouth?

The anchor says this:

"Both Kyle and he were there for very different reasons for the same event. One was an ally to Jacob Blake and what he had happened, and the other seemed to be the one that was protecting this idea that police brutality may have been ok."

Source: https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/rittenhouse-verdict-watch-peak-america-s-comfort-violence-n1283872

What utter crap!! How do they even arrive at these conclusions? The echo chamber of lies protects them from the truth.

 

[NauticalGent]

It's called pandering.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

And what about the authority of the hundreds of millions of gun owners in the US? Do they too have to have military or police training?

No, but we aren't talking about them in the specifics of the Rittenhouse case. If any of those other gun owners shot and killed someone, we would still by law have to look at individual circumstances before, during, and after the shooting to look for relevant factors. Trying to bring in the law of large numbers to talk about average behavior still doesn't matter in individual cases. We don't prosecute based on averages. We prosecute on the individual evidence of actions in the case.

Secondly, you are now suggesting the equal right to self defence for an immigrant is a philosophical position, rather than a legal one.

If my words were imperfect on that point, I apologize for lack of clear language. However, I am not wrong. In the USA, we recognize individual rights. But in other countries, they are not always recognized or upheld. For us it is "We hold these truths be self-evident, that all men are created equal..." That applies to us and to anyone in the USA. Step outside the USA, particularly to certain Islamic countries, and that isn't true. Therefore, philosophy and law do not match uniformly around the world.

Forgive me for being a centrist, but I seek to have a balanced understanding of events before I want to point the finger of blame. Though actually, here I think I can point at least one finger (and not the middle one, at that) at the prosecutors and police who didn't forcefully enough suppress the violence that permeated the area beforehand, prompting other people to believe that police authority had already broken down. Had THAT situation been addressed properly, RIttenhouse would never have been in that situation in the first place (I think.)

 

[Jon]

Whatever our individual views Doc, we will soon have a verdict. What I find hard to accept is that with the throw of a dice, someone can either spend a lifetime behind bars, or become rich following undoubtedly successful lawsuits for slander. These are wildly divergent outcomes.

How can it be so?

 

[Steve R.]

Tucker rambles on for a while, but eventually gets around to making the case that the Rittenhouse trial is a political persecution. Tucker also brings-up the point that Gaige Grosskreutz has not been charged for his illegal firearm or his threat violence. That would be selective justice, which would further the narrative that Rittenhouse is being "targeted". That also leads to the question of whether any of the rioters and looters where ever arrested, convicted, and placed in jail? If not, why is Rittenhouse the only person being placed on trial? The rationale, the Rittenhouse trial is a political persecution.

Tucker: Why did they let Kenosha burn? | Fox News Video

'Tucker Carlson Tonight' host discusses the Kyle Rittenhouse trial

video.foxnews.com

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Whatever our individual views Doc, we will soon have a verdict. What I find hard to accept is that with the throw of a dice, someone can either spend a lifetime behind bars, or become rich following undoubtedly successful lawsuits for slander. These are wildly divergent outcomes.

How can it be so?

Lawyer incompetence is how it can be so. What is the old joke about "What do you call the guy who graduated in last place in medical school? ... Doctor." The same is true of lawyers. The roll of the dice here includes which lawyer you can get, which prosecutor you get, and whether a majority of the jurors are sheep so that a couple of strong-willed alpha-jurors can persuade the sheep to follow.

How could O.J. be acquited of criminal homicide but be found liable for wrongful death? Incompetence at the criminal trial!

We can probably pick and choose a bunch of cases to bemoan, but the truth is that people are imperfect, inconsistent, and insistent on their rights without always having the wherewithal to assure those rights. So uneven jurisprudence leads to the divergence of outcomes. IMHO, of course.

 

[Jon]

I largely agree with you Doc, except the OJ bit.

 

[NauticalGent]

except the OJ bit